Vanilla Sky was an awesome film. I also recommend Oblivion. What a twist. That was weird! Indeed America were rascals too, btw.

By no means am I saying the United States is a perfect and innocent nation. But I would definitely say that today they are the lesser of evils such as Russia and the Islamic State. My mother is from Angola and during the cold war the superpowers of the world had their eye on it because it is rich. When the civil war broke out, my mother fled to Portugal.

Agostinho Neto, the man who would eventually become the first Angolan president, had travelled to Washington and asked the Kennedy administration to help him fight against the Portuguese colonialists there. Kennedy refused because colonialism was lucrative for America in Africa.

So Neto turned to Castro in Havana. When Angola got their independence, and the nationalist parties battled for power, it was the Cubans who helped Neto's MPLA party to establish a Marxist-Leninist government. Cubans also defeated the South African armies who were supported by Americans. Nobody wanted the aparteid and America was clearly on the wrong side here. But America, with the CIA and an Angolan natinalist party (UNITA) led by Maoist warrior Jonas Savimbi, caused the longest internecine battle to ensue in the Cold War. They fought the MPLA, FNLA, and the Cubans. The MPLA dealt with all of them. They even prevented a coup in the 70s by fractionists, a group that favoured Soviet communism over Neto's socialism.

America was a real menace at that time. But so were the communists. I have a link about this guys, I even met two men who worked for Savimbi but had to run from UNITA when they were suspected of treason. One of them, Puna, went on to become ambassador of Angola to Canada.

If you guys are interested in this I will provide a link that documents this history and part of my life. (I'll look for it.)

By the way, Islam is banned in Angola.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

nesgirl wrote:If you guys are interested in this I will provide a link that documents this history and part of my life. (I'll look for it.)

Sure, I'd read about it.

nesgirl wrote:It was bad on the Africans in America because they had some very serious racism issues in that country. Did you know they actually had a civil war in America, and it was all because they were treating the Africans really terribly. Even after the civil war, the racism in that country wouldn't stop. It took a man named Martin Luther King Jr, who was a man of ideals very much like I am a female of ideals to stand up to them and tell them what they were doing was wrong, and lecture them on how to treat others of different origins better. However it took a lot longer to for them to learn to treat females better. Females were treated as house servants for the longest time. And even when there was a female who stood up to them named Susan B Anthony, demanding rights and even breaking the law by voting, she was sent to prison for it. It took a lot longer for females to actually gain enough equality so they weren't treated like house servants and were proper citizens. Still females do struggle for complete equality, and you can see why it is a sensitive subject for many citizens of that gender. This is one of the reasons also why some females are very distrustful of partnerships, because there are still struggles for equality, and some fear servitude like there was back in the old days, and truly want to be treated as an equal citizen.

MLK was successful and is so commended today because he employed passive resistance--many say he owes a great amount of debt to Ghandi. He was a pacifist and constantly encouraged white and black anti-segregationists to fight with words and passion as opposed to violence. If they resorted to violence, he said, they were no better than the racists who enforced mindless police brutality upon the innocents.

America is still remarkably behind everyone else as far as gender equality. It's mostly all in the Deep South, though, where there is still a great deal of social lag. Lot of Bible-thumpers down there. I don't, however, think that there is any "servitude" going on anymore. Absolutely no one I know thinks women are any lesser than men or should be subjugated beneath men. One thing that annoys me to no end is the feminist claim that we need to "empower" women. This is not only a fallacy but also a claim of vast misogyny--it is essentially saying that women need empowerment from us men or else they are useless and unable to help themselves. Nevertheless, religion plays a HUGE hand in what lingering gender inequality there is in the Western world. In fact, one could say that all misogyny and subjugation of women is ultimately derived from religion.

It didn't just take Martin Luther King. Way before this civil rights leader, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson had already tried to abolish slavery in 1787 when the Constitution of the United States was established. This was overruled by Congress on the basis that slavery was lucrative. Paine was very much for equality, pointing out that Americans were fighting for freedom from British rule and yet hypocritically enslaved human beings from Africa. This political pamphleteer's literature would influence Abraham Lincoln eighty years later to make emancipation official. (Especially the book, "The Rights of Man.")

But granted that even Lincoln wasn't quite there. Some of the things he said back then were ahead of his time but today would still be construed as racist. He'd say things like, "By no means am I saying that blacks are on the same level as whites, but... their manumission needs to be ratified by all..." (paraphrasing). Sure, it would sound appalling today but he needed to be subtle at the time and it was a small step in the right direction. Many men after him, and before King, set the machine that would provide the stage for people like your unorthodox religious minister in motion. All of them deserve credit as it was a gradual process against the enemy, and, if not for the preceding pressure from abolitionists, King wouldn't have got his chance to speak out and have his dream partly fulfilled. Racism still exists today, of course, but, believe it or not, it is not as ubiquitous or as blatant as it used to be. By the way, it is worth remembering that both Lincoln and King were assassinated. On the subject of equal rights regarding women, I'm all for it! In England we have a queen and she gets away with too much. Time to give her a minimum wage so she knows what it's like to not be a Royal...

Oh wow, I didn't realize you had to live through a war as a child. That is something no one should have to go through as a kid. Now I feel guilty for not understanding your situation.

Don't feel guilty. It was my mother who did and she had to get away from it. She was pregnant with my oldest sister when she emigrated. I was born four years later in Portugal while the civil war raged on in Angola. The political events at the time did affect our way of life though. Children of the Angolan civil war would ask me what side I was on and my father was a degenerate gambler who belted my mother on a daily basis (thank goodness she eventually divorced him). My father subscribed to the jingoistic doctrine of Lusotropicalism (states that Portuguese men are superior to everyone else as colonisers) and therefore, in his mind, a real man would have to ensure absolute control over his woman. He grew up during Salazar's rule - he was a Portuguese dictator during the colonial era.

@ deschainXIX:

Sure, I'd read about it.

Okay. It's part of the Cold War with the addition of some childhood events and how politics impacted upon my family. I hope it's interesting enough. As you will see, America interfered, the CIA made a mess, and then they abandoned their allies like they did in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The Cubans did something good there. They prevented the spread of apartheid in Africa. Enjoy:

MLK was successful and is so commended today because he employed passive resistance--many say he owes a great amount of debt to Ghandi. He was a pacifist and constantly encouraged white and black anti-segregationists to fight with words and passion as opposed to violence. If they resorted to violence, he said, they were no better than the racists who enforced mindless police brutality upon the innocents.

I would criticise Gandhi on two points: he abhorred technology and encouraged people to live in poverty. It was also irresponsible of him to adopt extreme asceticism knowing how influential he was during those turbulent times in India. Gandhi was stultifying the development of his country. In saying this, by no means do I condone what the nationalists did to him. Also, his pacifism would not have worked with the Nazis and he knew it. If Jews had adopted his pacifism, Hitler's job would certainly have been made easier.

In fact, one could say that all misogyny and subjugation of women is ultimately derived from religion.

Religion certainly promoted and encouraged such behaviour besides rape and murder. And it also prescribed slavery, racism, tribalism, and other forms of discrimination. And it never corrects itself. It takes an enlightened person to say, "This doesn't work and it's not right" followed by a major effort to encourage reform. finally, and rather tardily, religious leaders such as the Pope concede. "Yeah, perhaps the Lord's word was applicable only to that epoch, we need to work on a new exegesis..."

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Summerlander wrote:Vladimir Putin is certainly a war criminal using KGB tactics to expand his empire. Russians have regressed to something like the Czarist regime.

Hey Summerlander, could you explain what makes you think this? Just curious, because I've heard a lot of people say that Putin is one of the last people trying to prevent the US and EU from having a complete monopoly over certain resources like oil or the petrodollar for example. Of course, the media lies, and everyone has their own opinion, so it's tricky to know if what I've heard is reliable or not. But I just try to gather as much info on a topic as I possibly can by asking as many people as I can.

Wow, that was a truly expansive piece. You know a lot about political history! I totally agree with your conclusion, as well, by the way.

I also agree about the criticisms of Ghandi--I think I read about them in "The End of Faith." Harris briefly highlighted them, to refute people who pointed to MLK and Ghandi as examples of religion having a glorious, progressive hand behind history as well as an ugly, regressive one.

@nesgirl

The statement “most jobs won’t hire females because they’re overweight” is totally incorrect. There are, however, social conventions and expectations that make women prefer to be on the slimmer side. But that’s just something that arises naturally in a biological organism--it has nothing to do with political misogyny. In fact, one could say that there is an ever greater expectation for males to beef up and have hard-cut muscle--such a physique is far more difficult to accomplish than losing a few pounds. It’s simple human nature to desire a mate with an attractive physical appearance. Since we are sexual creatures, we tend to like people who are more attractive. It may be a nasty truth, but it’s still a truth, and it has nothing to do with gender inequality.

And also, I guarantee you that no respectable business or otherwise is going to hire someone solely on the basis of their gender. Such things simply do not exist anymore. If you have a woman come in who presents herself well and has plenty of education, and you also have a man come in dressed like a skater who doesn’t even have a diploma, who are they going to hire? The woman, of course.

Hillary Clinton has ran for presidency before. No one stopped her from running. She had no setbacks that the other candidates didn’t have. Of course, there were those fundy Christians who probably abhorred the idea of a woman leading the country--but that’s what I’ve been saying. Most of the gender inequality still around is practiced and purported by religious freaks.

Summerlander wrote:Vladimir Putin is certainly a war criminal using KGB tactics to expand his empire. Russians have regressed to something like the Czarist regime.

Hey Summerlander, could you explain what makes you think this? Just curious, because I've heard a lot of people say that Putin is one of the last people trying to prevent the US and EU from having a complete monopoly over certain resources like oil or the petrodollar for example. Of course, the media lies, and everyone has their own opinion, so it's tricky to know if what I've heard is reliable or not. But I just try to gather as much info on a topic as I possibly can by asking as many people as I can.

Hi and welcome to the debate, Worldenterer1!

Yes, the media can lie (which is why it is good to heed independent accounts or even essays written by journalists who have nothing to gain and can jeopardise their positions). But so can politicians - and more often! This is a new cold war and the Russian president is trying to destroy American hegemony via the world's banks. Surely he dreams about the economical fall of the United states of America and nostalgically craves for the old theocratic Russian empire where the head is a demigod. He is the new Tsar in the making. (Goes to church frequently.) He is the new Stalin, too. (He is portrayed as a spy superhero in games and cartoons.) He is not doing this for the good of the world. He is creating an Orwellian dystopia for his own glorification in history and be the world's greatest muscle. And Obama's mistakes abroad have only helped him.

President Vladimir Putin is an imperialist psychopath and cannot be trusted. I'm not kidding! I mean psychopath quite literally. Putin loves power, attention, suffering, intimidation, and has a complete disregard for human life. He has already been found to be responsible for thousands of deaths in his homeland, Ukraine and Georgia. Speaking of the latter, let's recall the South Ossetia war of the 90s, which brings the Georgian-Ossetian conflict to the forefront! It served only as part of a ploy for Russia to demonstrate how much these independent states are apparently incompetent and in need of mother Russia. That was very similar to what is happening in Ukraine today, where peace efforts and ceasefires are in vain and Russian control, internationally unrecognised, insidiously settles in.

Putin is an expert in espionage, false propaganda, intimidation, assassination and other forms of corruption. If I was to do a psychological assessment on first impressions, I'd say he resents the way he was brought up, in poverty among rats. As a teenager, his psychopathy already showed as he sought trouble at every opportunity in the streets of Leningrad. The KGB merely did a good job in turning a ruffian into a sophisticated, cold, and calculating psychopath. In his thirties, when he joined the Saint Petersburg Administration in heading the committee for external relations, he was investigated for corruption and the City Council recommended that he be fired. This didn't happened as the mayor was his former college professor and his right hand man. Before you know it, this monster is invited to the Kremlin to work for Boris Yeltsin, giving him the opportunity to influence government VIPs and climb the ladder of power.

Once Putin became Prime Minister, a series of shady explosions took place in Russia and many civilians were wounded or killed. Subsequently, Putin blamed terrorists from Chechnya, the land of minerals predominantly populated by Sunni Muslims. (Two birds with one stone if you see where this is going: an imperialist and economical move plus ensuring the preservation, strength, and gradual revival of Russian theocracy.) After this propaganda, Putin vowed to bring the chechnyans to justice, but here is the clincher: to this day no evidence has been produced to show that they were guilty of the atrocities. (Unlike 9/11!)

But the Kremlin looks suspiciously guilty...

Vladimir Putin has been accused of systematically stifling and manipulating the media, not to mention rigging elections. He even banned certain documentaries regarding what took place in Riazan. After receiving a report of suspicious activity in the area, the police managed to foil the planned detonation of a bomb. Experts even confirmed the existence of explosives. The FSB then subsequently claimed the incident was only a civilian defence exercise and that sugar had been used. Cover-up much? Thank god we have investigative journalists like Pavel Voloshin of the Novaya Gazetta, who interviewed the specialist who confirmed the existence of Hexagen:

http://fas.org/irp/news/2000/03/000322-fsb1.htm

deschainXIX wrote:Wow, that was a truly expansive piece. You know a lot about political history! I totally agree with your conclusion, as well, by the way. I also agree about the criticisms of Ghandi--I think I read about them in "The End of Faith." Harris briefly highlighted them, to refute people who pointed to MLK and Ghandi as examples of religion having a glorious, progressive hand behind history as well as an ugly, regressive one.

Hillary Clinton has ran for presidency before. No one stopped her from running. She had no setbacks that the other candidates didn’t have. Of course, there were those fundy Christians who probably abhorred the idea of a woman leading the country--but that’s what I’ve been saying. Most of the gender inequality still around is practiced and purported by religious freaks.

Thanks, deschainXIX. I guess I really wanted to understand those times and why people around me at the time were saying what they were saying. And good point about Hillary Clinton. She would probably do a better job than Obama regarding ISIS but she is still not perfect.

nesgirl wrote:

I think it is terrible that guys can only respect females who are slim, which is why so many females die from anorexia. Personally I don't see the point about guys with big muscles, they don't seem any different from any of the others. Recall that I am aromantic, so I don't notice or feel anything for anyone, although I try to behave civilized in public. While I do try to behave civilized with the opposite gender, there are some of them that will behave like idiots in front of me, and that irritates the heck out of me. I also harshly reject date requests.

Double standards. What do you think about 20-year-old Maddy Coz tweeting the following about David Beckham's 10-year-old son: "Romeo Beckham, you're like ten and so hot!" and then people slating paedophile-hunter Stinson Hunter for suggesting that she was inapproprite?

Hunter's argument urged people to imagine that a man was saying that to a 10-year-old girl. He merely reversed the roles and asked if people would be as justificative of the hypothetical male poster. I think Coz could have said something like, "Romeo, you're a handsome boy, you must take after your father and will be a ladies' man when you're older." This would be appropriate. But people seem to think that only male paedophiles exist. Imagine the uproar or the suspicion that would arise if a heterosexual man merely tweeted the following about a prepubescent girl: "You are so pretty, you'll definately be a fox when you're older..."

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."